Vetting and Barring Scheme
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I announced on 15 June that further implementation of the Vetting and Barring Scheme would be halted pending a review of the scheme. Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health, I am today announcing the terms of reference for this review which we have collectively agreed.
The review will be thorough and consider afresh the principles and objectives of the scheme and recommend what, if any, scheme is now needed. The review will be developed by officials working jointly across our three Departments and recommendations are expected early in the new year.
The protection of children and vulnerable adults must be paramount. But we must also ensure that arrangements are proportionate and support a trusting, caring society where well-meaning people are encouraged rather than deterred.
In parallel, a review of the criminal records regime will take place, led by the independent Government Adviser for Criminality Information Management, Mrs Sunita Mason. This will be undertaken in two phases and will report firstly on employment vetting systems which involve the Criminal Records Bureau, followed by a report on the broader regime.
The terms of reference for these are below.
Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling: Terms of Reference
In order to meet the coalition’s commitment to scale back the vetting and barring regime to common-sense levels, the review will:
Consider the fundamental principles and objectives behind the vetting and barring regime, including;
Evaluating the scope of the scheme’s coverage;
The most appropriate function, role and structures of any relevant safeguarding bodies and appropriate governance arrangements;
Recommending what, if any, scheme is needed now; taking into account how to raise awareness and understanding of risk and responsibility for safeguarding in society more generally.
Criminal Records Review: Terms of Reference
The Criminal Records Review will examine whether the criminal records regime strikes the right balance between respecting civil liberties and protecting the public. It is expected to make proposals to scale back the use of systems involving criminal records to common-sense levels. The review will include consideration of the following issues:
In phase 1:
(i) Could the balance between civil liberties and public protection be improved by scaling back the employment vetting systems which involve the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)?
(ii) Where Ministers decide such systems are necessary, could they be made more proportionate and less burdensome?
(iii) Should police intelligence form part of CRB disclosures?
In phase 2:
1. How should the content of a “criminal record” be defined?
2. Where should criminal records be kept and who should be responsible for managing them?
3. Who should have access to criminal records databases, for what purposes and subject to what controls and checks? To what extent should police intelligence be disclosed?
4. What capacity should individuals have to access, challenge and correct their own criminal records?
5. Could the administration of criminal records be made more straightforward, efficient and cost-effective?
6. Could guidance and information on the operation of the criminal records regime be improved?
7. How effective is the integration of overseas data into the criminal records regime?
Control Order Powers
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The future of the control order regime
As set out in the previous statement laid on 21 June 2010, Official Report, column 6WS, the Government are reviewing control orders as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist and security powers and measures. This review is ongoing and we will report the outcome of the review to Parliament in the autumn.
The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
As explained in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, two CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period 11 June 2010 to 10 September 2010, one non-derogating control order has been made, with the permission of the court, but has not been served. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. Three control orders have been revoked during this reporting period. One control order was revoked because it was not possible to meet the disclosure test set out in the June 2009 House of Lords judgment (AF & Others) on article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Two control orders were revoked as they were no longer considered necessary.
In total, as of 10 September, there were nine control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders are non-derogating. Four individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas.
During this reporting period, one individual pleaded guilty to six counts of breaching his control order and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.
During this reporting period, 56 modifications of control order obligations were made. Fourteen requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. One appeal has been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period three appeals have been lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to substantive judicial review proceedings under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AY, [2010] EWHC 1860 (Admin) handed down on 26 July 2010, the court upheld the control order on the basis that there was and remained reasonable grounds for suspecting that AY was involved in terrorism-related activity, that it was and remained necessary for a control order to be imposed on him for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism and that each of the obligations in the control order was and remained necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting AY’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. The court also considered and rejected the argument that an unsuccessful prosecution for a terrorism-related offence precludes the Secretary of State from making a control order on essentially the same material as that relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to a modification appeal under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. CA, [2010] EWHC 2278 (QB) handed down on 10 September 2010, the court found that the relocation of CA to a different town was not proportionate because of his particular family circumstances.
One judgment has been handed down by the Court of Appeal during this reporting period. In AN v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AE and AF [2010] EWCA Civ 869, handed down on 28 July 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment of 18 January 2010 in relation to AE and AF and upheld AN’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment of 31 July 2009. The issue was what the appropriate remedy should be in control order cases where the Secretary of State elects not to make sufficient disclosure to comply with article 6 of the ECHR. The Court of Appeal found that the appropriate remedy in these circumstances is for the control order to be quashed from the date it was made and not for it to be revoked with effect from a date after the control order was served on the individual as the Secretary of State had sought to argue.
Most full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org/
Crime and Policing
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Johnson
That is certainly an issue, particularly in the light of the HMIC-Audit Commission’s joint report. We must take a rigorous approach to its conclusion that, if the Government cut more than 12%, front-line policing will be affected. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Audit Commission has been done away with; I hope that HMIC will not come next.
As police numbers reduce, so will their powers. I shall deal with DNA and CCTV in a moment.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to other matters, may I tell him that I have been listening carefully to the points that he has made about cuts? He knows full well that his Government had pledged to make 20% cuts in public sector spending. If they were not going to occur in the Home Office, where were they going to be?
Alan Johnson
When we were in government, we decided to pick the priority Departments, and the chosen areas were health, education, international development and crime and policing. It is extraordinary that the present Government—[Interruption.] Hang on! I am answering the question. It is incredible that the present Government believe that international development, health and, to a certain extent, education must be prioritised, and that they are more important than crime and policing. Quite frankly, I can say as a former Health Secretary that we did not commit to increase the health budget above the rate of inflation. That budget was £110 billion. I went from the Department of Health, which had a £110 billion budget, to the Home Office, which had a budget of about £10 billion. We would have saved £73 billion; we would not have gone for a saving of £113 billion, which Boris Johnson described only yesterday as cutting too savagely and too deeply. It is a central feature of this argument that the Government are going too far with the cuts and that they are failing to treat crime and policing as a priority in the comprehensive spending review, even though it is a priority for constituents everywhere.
During the summer, the Home Secretary made a speech saying that we needed to “move beyond the ASBO”. I want to make two things clear. First, the antisocial behaviour order is the most serious of a range of civil powers introduced in 1998 so that the police, local authorities and other agencies could tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way. They needed to tackle the kind of behaviour that falls short of criminality but nevertheless destroys people’s lives. These powers are not driven from Whitehall, as the Home Secretary suggested, but through community safety partnerships that involve community groups and social enterprises.
The second thing that we need to be clear about is that, where those powers are used effectively, they work. I shall lapse into what I hope is uncharacteristic immodesty for a moment when I say that they worked particularly well during my year as Home Secretary, when an additional emphasis was placed on the victim and on intensified activity in localities where public perception of antisocial behaviour was above average.
The social affairs correspondent of The Guardian said recently that these measures had had no discernible effect, but they had a discernible effect in the one place where an effect can be discerned—namely, the British crime survey. The Home Office, under the current Home Secretary, stated on 15 July that, whereas previous reductions had been in one or two specific areas,
“the reduction between 08-09 and 09-10”—
the glorious year of Johnson—
“reflects falls in the proportion of people perceiving a problem with almost all types of anti-social behaviour that make up the overall measure”.
That refers to reductions in abandoned cars, noisy neighbours, drunkenness, drug use, youth nuisance, litter, vandalism and graffiti. Those are all issues for which there were insufficient powers prior to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The statistical release went on to say that antisocial behaviour was now at its lowest level since records began, with, for the first time, a majority of the population agreeing that the police and councils were dealing with antisocial behaviour in their local area.
Alan Johnson
No, I will not give way again. It was tedious last time, and it would be tedious again. If the Government want to strike a blow against the surveillance state, they should sack Andy Coulson, not take away CCTV cameras.
We recently learned of another power that was due to be introduced, but is now held in suspended animation. This is a serious point. I refer to domestic violence protection orders, which received cross-party support earlier this year. They are designed to protect instantly women and children who are under threat. ACPO, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Women’s Aid and the Home Affairs Committee urged their introduction to close a major gap in public protection. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Committee.
There was no dispute whatsoever about the need for that measure, but although the Home Secretary has said that her
“ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls”,
she presides over a regime that is threatening the enormous progress that has been made in tackling domestic violence over the last 13 years. There has been a 64% reduction since 1997. I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General is present, because he, with rather more grace than the Home Secretary, has recognised the significant increases in successful prosecutions and the sharp fall in the number of discontinued cases, as well as the amazing reduction in domestic violence. However, as the Home Secretary will agree, there is much more to be done in this crucial area.
Thankfully, the Government were forced into a U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants—mainly, I have to say, owing to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who pursued the issue tirelessly. I think that it is time to execute the same manoeuvre, and to get on with introducing domestic violence protection orders as quickly as possible.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Domestic violence is an issue that should worry Members throughout the House, as, indeed, should all forms of violence against women. If the last Government were so concerned about it, however, can he tell me why it took them 12 years to produce a strategy to end it?
Alan Johnson
The answer is quite simple. The Home Secretary ought to do some research. From 1998 onwards we did not need a strategy, because we had introduced an action plan involving the changes that led to the reduction to which I referred. [Interruption.] The statistics that I quoted came from the Attorney-General and from the Home Office. If we had waited 12 years to introduce any measures to deal with this issue, we would not have reduced domestic violence by 64%.
As I said earlier, during the biggest global recession that we have experienced since the 1930s, crime fell by 9%. During the recession of the 1990s over which the Conservatives presided, it rose by 18%, and domestic violence doubled. That was the legacy of the broken Britain that we remember from those days. It is ridiculous of the Home Secretary to suggest that because we published a strategy to deal with domestic violence against women and young girls and then moved to the next stage, we did nothing for 12 years. We did nothing for 12 years except reduce domestic violence by 64%, and produce all the other statistics quoted so generously by the Attorney-General.
I have dealt with the reduced resources being inflicted on police forces with restricted powers. Let me now deal with the third part of the triple whammy: the imposition of elected commissioners to replace the hundreds of experienced councillors, magistrates and other citizens who sit on our police authorities. Here we see the “we know best” arrogance of the Government in all its depressing detail. The public did not vote for the abolition of police authorities at the general election, or for their replacement by an elected commissioner. This model is opposed by the police, by local councillors of all political persuasions, by ACPO, by the Association of Police Authorities, and by practically everyone who knows anything about policing.
The Local Government Association, under a Tory stewardship, says it does not believe that introducing directly elected individuals is the best way in which to strengthen police accountability. The association believes that such action
“will weaken the ability of the police, councils and other public services to cut crime.”
It could also “fragment local partnerships” and make a “place-based budgeting approach”—I am not sure what that is—“more difficult” to operate. Yet the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said:
“we are not going to consider other models, this is the model we are going to introduce, that is the coalition agreement.”
And so we have a rushed White Paper, “Policing in the 21st Century”. Incidentally, the Conservatives also produced one of these in 1993; it was called “A police service for the 21st century”, so the titles do not change much but the content certainly does. They published the more recent document on 26 July for an eight-week consultation period over the summer break. Helpfully, at the back of the document there is a code of practice on consultations, which includes the criterion:
“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.”
Irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum, the topic under discussion is a major issue about which there are deep reservations. To quote from the code of practice, it is “feasible and sensible” to have a longer consultation than 12 weeks; there is no argument whatever to curtail it.
The first objection to the proposal is its puzzling inconsistency in relation to the approach to elected mayors. While a referendum is necessary if a city or town might have an elected mayor, no such public consultation is proposed for the equally profound step of introducing a single commissioner to replace the collective and diverse wisdom of police authorities—and this, again, from a Government who preach localism.
There is, of course, an attraction in direct accountability; indeed, when we were in government we looked at the issue not once, but twice. However, the difference between us and the dogmatic zealots who now occupy the Treasury Bench—I excuse the Attorney-General from that—is that we consulted properly. Our 2004 consultation found overwhelming opposition to direct elections. Respondents pointed out the dangers of extremist groups succeeding on low turnouts, single-issue groups dominating, a move to a more short-term approach with re-election dependent on quick wins rather than long-term objectives, the politicisation of accountable bodies and the lack of public appetite for elections and the cost of running them. However, the case for directly electing the 17 members of the police authority—which is what we consulted on and which was Liberal Democrat policy at the last general election—is much stronger than that for the replacement of police authorities by a single elected commissioner. This is the most ill-considered and pernicious aspect of the proposal.
Sir Ronnie Flanagan looked at this issue in his 2008 review. He expressed the great fear about a single person with a political mandate exerting pressure that too readily conflicts with operational judgment. He pointed out that it may also be an impediment to collaboration—which, rightly, is a major part of the Government’s White Paper—since the vote for the post will be on localised issues rather than the largely unseen issues of cross-border collaboration.
Flanagan made a number of points from a policing perspective, but an even stronger argument concerns the loss of a body of people who are geographically diverse as well as diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender and background. The Government propose a new body—a police and crime panel—to oversee the commissioner. That is meant to provide the checks and balances. The body will, however, have no say on policing and no veto over the commissioner’s decisions. Therefore, we face the prospect of having an elected commissioner who, as the White Paper makes clear, will have a team of personal appointees, and a police and crime panel to overview the commissioner but not the police, whose overview will be conducted by a single commissioner whose decisions are final. Somewhere in all of this will be elected councillors—and in some places elected mayors. Chief constables will have to find their way around this maze, with all the additional costs involved, while trying to cope with the biggest financial upheaval the police service has ever faced.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes the appalling fiscal deficit left by the last Government and reiterates the urgent need to restore the nation to economic health; recognises that the police will need to play their part in reducing that deficit; and welcomes the Government’s proposed policing reforms, which will deliver a more responsive and efficient police service, less encumbered by bureaucracy, more accountable to the public and, most importantly, better equipped to fight crime.”
The text of the Opposition motion and the 50-minute speech that we have just heard from the shadow Home Secretary provide yet more proof, if any were needed, of the utter state of denial of the Labour party. From listening to the shadow Home Secretary and reading the motion, one would wonder how on earth Labour lost the election; it had such a perfect record on everything. Let me just remind the House of its record. Labour doubled our national debt and left us with the biggest deficit in the G20. As much as Labour Members might now like to pretend otherwise, if they had won the election, they would have had no choice but to take action to reduce the deficit. We know that they were already planning 20% cuts—they just did not have the guts to tell us where those would come from. This afternoon, however, we were told by the shadow Home Secretary that they were going to come from health, defence and local government—[Interruption.] Labour Members say that he did not say that, but I asked him where the cuts were coming from and he said, “Well, they weren’t going to come from policing and education” and that he would have taken—
Alan Johnson
The right hon. Lady really does need to follow the debate and to read the documents. Some £75 million was to come from police overtime, £400 million from procurement and £500 million from process. This was all set out in the pre-Budget report, the Budget and last November’s policing White Paper—£1.3 billion-worth of savings. The Government can keep parroting that we have never set all this out, but the trouble is that we have and it is available to look at.
Mrs May
I say to the shadow Home Secretary that the intervention that he has just made was not the answer given to the question that I put to him earlier about the cuts and on which I was just commenting. The Labour party went into the election promising 20% cuts. He claims that those would not have come from the Home Office budget. I asked him where they would have come from and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has made clear from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that they would have come from health—that is what the shadow Home Secretary was saying.
If the shadow Home Secretary will not listen to me—he does not appear to wish to listen to me on the issue of cuts—perhaps he will listen to the following:
“When ... Alan Johnson”—
flails at—
“the coalition for protecting NHS spending against cuts being inflicted elsewhere in Whitehall, Labour looks as if it is indulging in opposition for opposition’s sake. Comfortable it may be. But it will not bring Labour back to power.”
Those are not my words, but those of the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Alan Milburn. So let us hear no more nonsense from those on the Labour Benches about police budgets and police numbers.
Labour’s denial is not just about police funding; it is also about its record on crime and policing. I had hoped that the shadow Home Secretary would use the freedom of being in opposition to get around the country and to be out there meeting people and finding out what they really think about what is happening. He might, thus, have learned about the booze-fuelled violence that takes place in too many of our town centres at night, and about the gang crime in our cities and the antisocial behaviour that makes so many people’s lives a misery. But judging by his speech today, and indeed by the motion, he has not bothered to find out what people actually think—
Mrs May
Wait a moment. That is a shame, because there are occasions when the shadow Home Secretary stops playing party politics and is a bit more candid about his record and about our policies. On licensing, for example, he has said:
“I regret not doing more to tackle the problems caused by binge drinking during my period in office. The Government”—
this coalition Government—
“is right to stop alcohol being sold below cost price. It’s something we should have done.”
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary listens selectively to one or two of the things that we say; I have just made the point that sometimes he is willing to put aside party politics and to make statements of that sort. Sadly, we did not hear any of those statements in the speech that he has just given. Instead, we heard the familiar rewritten history of the past 13 years. Let us examine some of the claims that Labour makes about that period. It hired a record number of police officers, but it bound them so tightly in red tape that they are available on the streets for only 11% of their time.
Alan Johnson
I shall say two things on this. Those on the Government Benches are deriding Michael Howard so, first, I should say that it was the White Paper called “A police service for the 21st century”, produced under Lord Howard, that introduced all of the target regime and suggested that the Home Office should be able to appoint the chairs of political authorities. Some of that was the right thing to do. I know that he is derided by those on the Government Benches, but Michael Howard was actually a very successful Home Secretary.
My second point deals with the HMIC’s figure on availability. HMIC talks about the percentage of the police who are available at any one time to be on the streets. The police work in shifts, and some police officers are sick, some have to be in court, some deal with counter-terrorism and some deal with child pornography, so that statistic is meaningless. Many police officers have been quick to point that out. There is no way in which under the previous Government that availability rate would have been any higher.
Mrs May
I say to the shadow Home Secretary that I am deeply disappointed in what he is saying. I will tell him who that statistic means something to—it means something to my constituents, and to those of other hon. Members, when they do not see police on the streets. They know the reality, but sadly the shadow Home Secretary is not willing to accept it. The reality is that because of things that his Government did we have seen that police officers have been tied up in bureaucracy and red tape, kept in police stations filling in forms when they could have been out on the streets, where people want to see them and where they want to be.
This is not just about the bureaucracy faced by police officers; the previous Labour Government passed a record number of laws, but left office with nearly 900,000 violent crimes taking place a year. They spent a record amount on criminal justice, but they left office with 26,000 victims of crime every single day. Labour Members might think that that is a record to be proud of, but we do not and neither do the British people.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Lady tell us how many of those victims would support her suggestion to get rid of antisocial behaviour orders or would support the reduction in the number of CCTV cameras? Has she ever come across a constituent who wants to see fewer CCTV cameras?
Mrs May
Once again, the trouble with the Labour party is that it is making up things about what our policy is, purely in order to meet the arguments that Labour Members want to bring into this House. On CCTV, we have said that we want better regulation of it and automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—and it is right and proper for us to introduce that. If the Labour party thought that there was nothing to be done about CCTV, why did it start looking at introducing somebody to examine the regulation of CCTV? The regulation of CCTV is important and I suggest to the hon. Lady that she does not go around trying to suggest that the Government are going to get rid of CCTV cameras as a result of our policy to regulate those cameras better.
The hon. Lady has given me a welcome opening here, because I wanted to go on to discuss not only the record of the previous Labour Government, but what we are going to do— that is despite the fact that this is an Opposition day debate. I want to talk about how we as the new coalition Government will deliver effective policing that cuts crime in an era of falling budgets, because we on this side of the House are determined not only to tackle the legacy of debt we have been left with by the last Government, but to make sure we deliver high-quality public services even as we reduce public spending. If we are to succeed, the policing reforms I announced to the House before the summer recess, which were so derided by the shadow Home Secretary, will be vital.
Despite spending more on criminal justice than any comparable country, we remain a high-crime country—the chance of being a victim of crime here is higher than almost anywhere else in Europe—[Interruption.] Those on the Labour Front Bench are making lots of comments from a sedentary position, but that is again part of the denial. The idea that this country is somehow a wonderful world where people do not experience crime or antisocial behaviour because of the impact of the last Government is completely false. We remain a high-crime country and we need to do something about it. The complacency on the Opposition Benches about this issue is, frankly, breathtaking.
Alan Johnson
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the figure, which is in the White Paper, comes from the international crime victims survey, which was last carried out in 2004 and surveys 2,000 people—in comparison with the British crime survey, which surveys 45,000 people—and sometimes takes its statistics from those convicted, a very important point that was raised in an earlier intervention, and sometimes has nothing to do with the level of crimes? It is not a basis for saying that we have the highest crime rates in Europe. Will she confirm that?
Mrs May
What I will confirm is that yet again, in this debate, we have seen from those who made up the Labour Government an unwillingness to accept what people out there see and feel on their streets. It is about issues of crime and levels of crime in this country that are not acceptable. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the figures, I think that figures such as those that I quoted earlier—26,000 victims of crime a day and nearly 900,000 violent crimes a year—are not figures to be proud of. They are figures that we need to deal with. We need to do more and that means unfettering the police and allowing them to get out on the streets and to do what they should be doing, which is dealing with crime.
Hazel Blears
The right hon. Lady is right that there is always more to do in tackling crime. The Labour party has never been complacent about how important these issues are to the British public. However, does she not accept that there is now the lowest risk for more than 20 years in this country of becoming a victim of crime? Of course we are not perfectly safe but we are an awful lot safer than we used to be under previous Governments.
Mrs May
I am disappointed in the line that the right hon. Lady has taken. She made an important and valid point earlier in her intervention on her right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about antisocial behaviour and the important fact that all too often the perception of antisocial behaviour is worse in deprived communities and those communities that are among the poorest and most vulnerable in our country. My point is very simple: none of us can be complacent about levels of crime in this country. We need to find the ways in which we can reduce crime and in which we can help the police to do their job.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Northamptonshire people have little to thank the previous Government for. They reviewed formula funding in a way that benefitted the county and then failed to implement it. They admitted that the population figures used were incorrect but failed to act on them and they cheated Northamptonshire police out of millions of pounds a year. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend meet a delegation from Northamptonshire and, I hope, talk about reviewing formula funding?
Mrs May
Either I or the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice would be very happy to meet delegations of colleagues, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the Lincolnshire Members of Parliament have already got in before him to discuss their bid on formula funding. However, as I have said, I am happy to meet such a delegation, as is the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Let me turn to the point about the accountability of the police and the policing reforms that we will put forward in the police reform and social responsibility Bill. Our changes to the accountability of the police will be crucial in ensuring that they once more become crime fighters instead of form writers. Central to those reforms is the idea that we want to get rid of the inefficient and ineffective processes of bureaucratic accountability, where power rests with Whitehall civil servants, and replace it with direct democratic accountability, with power placed back in the hands of the people. Not only will that make the police truly responsive to the needs of the public, but it will mean a more efficient and innovative police service, free from the meddling of central Government. We can be as aggressive as we like in cutting police paperwork—and we are—but we will never achieve the culture change we need until we deal with the driver of the problem and that is Whitehall.
As I noted earlier, according to the recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that is cited in the motion, only 11% of police officers are visible and available to the public at any one time. It is not as if the Opposition were not warned about that when they were in power. The shadow Home Secretary has quoted Sir Ronnie Flanagan, but he said in his review that the difference in paperwork now compared with when he was a front-line officer was “truly staggering”. Jan Berry, the last president of the Police Federation, said:
“As a result of Government diktats, the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall”.
The last Government did not listen, but we will. Already we have cancelled the top-down public confidence target and scrapped the policing pledge. We are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search and we are scrapping the stop form in its entirety. We will return charging decisions to officers for minor offences and we will reform the health and safety rules that stop police officers intervening to protect the public.
That is just the start. Shifting the model of accountability from the centre to local communities removes the need for pages and pages of bureaucracy and it removes the temptation to Home Secretaries to issue initiative after initiative.
Keith Vaz
Of course, we welcome the steps taken by the Home Secretary to reduce bureaucracy, but the previous Government were also committed to reducing bureaucracy. That goes back, as the Home Secretary has said, to the Flanagan report. Will she commit herself to ensuring that Jan Berry, when she delivers her final report, can continue the good work that she is doing in monitoring the level of bureaucracy and advising the Government from outside the Home Office about the need to continue along this path?
Mrs May
We obviously look forward to the results of the further work that Jan Berry has been doing in this area. The right hon. Gentleman started his intervention by commenting that the last Government intended to reduce bureaucracy, but the problem was that they did not. We have come in and within a matter of months we have shown specific examples of where we can reduce that bureaucracy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On that point, my recollection is—I think that the shadow Home Secretary said this in his contribution—that the previous Government did make some progress on bureaucracy. My concern, particularly on stop and search and stop and account, is that we have a long history in this country of recognising that they can have particular effects on particular communities. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be sensitive, particularly in relation to my constituency, to the fact that we have a long past during which this issue has been at the absolute apex of concern about crime. I do not want to see the sort of problems that we had in the 1980s again. When she says that bureaucracy is being reduced as regards stop and account, will she say whether there will still be accountability for stopping ethnic minorities, in particular?
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He makes particular reference to his constituency, and there will be others who will share his concern. That is why, as I said, we are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search. We fully recognise that we need to do that in a sensitive way that notes and deals with the issue that he has raised.
In addition to dealing with bureaucracy, we will introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners—single, named individuals who will be democratically accountable to their communities. That accountability will be real and will be provided not by invisible police authorities—surveys show that only 7% of people know that there is a police authority they can go to if they have a problem with the police—and not by Ministers hundreds of miles away in London, but by people themselves. The police commissioner will be somebody whom people have heard of, whom they have voted for, whom they can hold to account and whom they can get rid of if they do not cut crime. So we will leave local crime fighting to local crime fighters, but we will not forget cross-border, national and international crime. It is an irony that for years the Home Office has tried to micro-manage local policing from the centre while it has neglected policing at the national level. That is why we will establish a national crime agency with a proper command structure to fight serious organised crime and to control our borders.
I understand that it was only yesterday that the Opposition added antisocial behaviour to their motion. The shadow Home Secretary spent quite a bit of time on it in his speech, but he forgot to mention his own quote about the last Government’s record on antisocial behaviour, when he said:
“We became a bit complacent…we…dragged our feet by not making it a priority.”
He claimed that the police have the powers they need to deal with antisocial behaviour and that there is a range of 15 options that they can use, but the fact that there are so many options is precisely the problem. We have individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour injunctions, antisocial behaviour orders and criminal antisocial behaviour orders. There is a whole list of options that increases the bureaucracy and complexity and means that in many areas, the police, councils and local people find it very difficult to decide what is appropriate, and that all too often things are not applied.
The shadow Home Secretary should also know that three quarters of incidents of antisocial behaviour are not reported and that more than half of ASBOs are breached. Again, that is not a record of which to be proud or on which to be complacent. That is why we need to look at the whole toolkit that is available to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour. No number of sanctions is a match for local policing that is responsive to local needs. That is what this Government’s police reform agenda will deliver—simpler, smarter sanctions that are faster to obtain, easier to enforce and that provide a strong deterrent and a real punishment.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
One of the main problems encountered by those dealing with ASBOs has been the inordinate length of time it can take for applications to succeed, only for people then to find that the problem that they were dealing with has gone away or has transmogrified into something else. Secondly, CRASBOs, or criminal ASBOs—I am sorry about using that acronym, or euphemism; it does not matter—are totally ineffective. They are afterthoughts that are bolted on to convictions and their enforcement has been nothing short of lamentable.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about the panoply of ASBO powers that are available. The important point is that the bureaucracy involved in getting an ASBO means that, all too often, nothing is done, because it takes so long to get something enforced. That is why so many communities up and down the country find that the orders are not working and why they continue to suffer from antisocial behaviour.
Geraint Davies
It is very generous of the right hon. Lady to see me. I could not sit any closer; I have been doing my best. Will she say how her Government expect to reduce the number of short-term prison sentences—now a clear and amplified ambition—at the same time as getting rid of ASBOs and the current means of reducing those short-term measures without a massive escalation of crime and antisocial behaviour in the community?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman should not try to second-guess what may or may not be in the sentencing review that will come from the Ministry of Justice. There is a commitment to reviewing sentencing and I suggest that he should wait until that comes out, when he will be able to make his comments.
One area that I want to speak briefly about, which has not been touched on much today, is the unmitigated disaster of Labour’s Licensing Act 2003. One in three people who turn up in accident and emergency have alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related crime and disorder costs the taxpayer up to £13 billion every year. When that legislation was introduced, we were promised a café-style culture, but five years on the police are still fighting an ongoing battle against booze-fuelled crime and disorder. So we will overhaul Labour’s Licensing Act to ensure that local people have greater control over pubs, clubs and other licensed premises. We will allow local authorities to charge more for late-night licences, which they will then be able to plough back into late-night policing in their areas. We will double the fine for under-age sales and we will allow authorities permanently to shut down any shop or bar that persistently sells alcohol to children. We will also ban the below-cost sale of alcohol to ensure that retailers can no longer sell it at irresponsible prices. As I have said, I welcome the support for that which we will have from the Opposition.
In today’s motion and in the shadow Home Secretary’s speech, he and the Opposition have fallen into the trap of thinking that they need to oppose everything the Government do just for the sake of it. They are denying the legacy of debt that they have left to this Government and they oppose the Budget cuts that they had planned to make. In denying their record, they oppose the police reforms that they once proposed, so let me try to shake the shadow Home Secretary out of his state of denial. Police officers are available on the streets for just 11% of their time and there are 900,000 violent crimes a year and 26,000 victims of crime every single day. That is the legacy of the Labour party and it will be up to the coalition Government to put things right.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, but if I have time, I shall certainly give way.
We must also consider the situation surrounding antisocial behaviour orders. We pioneered ASBOs in Manchester and have a remarkable record on that. Inspector Damian O’Reilly has just received the Greater Manchester police’s community police officer of the year award and will be entered in the national finals in November. He has given me information about how ASBOs have dealt with gangs in my constituency. That has been praised by a judge. When certain people who had been detected and rounded up by the police were found guilty by that judge, he said:
“It’s time to give Ryder Brow”—
which is in my constituency—
“back to the residents”.
Inspector O’Reilly—he is someone who is doing this work—says that he has found ASBOs
“to be really effective in breaking up the dynamics of problematic groups”.
He goes on to state:
“Were ASBOs to be abolished it would be devastating for both the community and the officers who put so much effort into obtaining them, the problems would reoccur and the only winners would be the criminals.”
The Home Secretary states—although it is impossible to say how she knows this—that only a proportion of antisocial behaviour is reported. She seems to suggest that that is an indictment of ASBOs, but only a minute proportion of rapes are ever reported by rape victims—a tiny number of women report rapes—so does that mean that we should not have legislation to deal with rapists? The right hon. Lady puts forward an utterly absurd argument.
No Government have ever had a perfect record on law and order, but the Labour Government improved things and made it possible for the police at the sharp end to improve the situation in my constituency. Time will tell what will happen as a result of the Government’s proposals and the objectives that the Home Secretary set out today. If she is right, we will have to acknowledge that, but if she is wrong, the Government will be to blame and they will have to carry the can. What they are doing is likely to make the criminal more rampant while the householder who is burgled and the person who is knocked down on the street become more vulnerable.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
But neither the right hon. Lady nor I can provide statistics for next year or the year after, and we will judge her on them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
We have had an interesting debate, and the level of interest in crime and policing provision has been demonstrated by the fact that 22 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken. That is a significant number of people who have expressed an interest in the concerns before us.
I would like to start be reiterating the Opposition’s central charge against the Government’s proposals to date. The record of the previous Labour Government was one of achievement and one of which Labour Members can be proud. It drove forward changes that I am proud of today and introduced cultural changes to the police service, but it will be put at risk by the Government’s actions in the next few weeks and months. In particular, that record will be put at risk—this is the major charge in the motion—by the proposals to cut the resources of the police service. That proposal, which was actually encouraged by the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—they did not fight the Treasury—will mean that we will face potential major reductions of 20 to 25% in the police service budget. That will create major difficulties in the future—[Interruption.] The Minister says, “How do you know that?” I know it because it was stated in the pre-Budget report and indicated to police forces across England and Wales. I hope that that does not happen, but I expect it to do so.
I am talking not just about funding issues, but about the policy choices that the Home Secretary and the Minister are making over CCTV, DNA, domestic violence protection orders, control orders, the direct election of police officials and penal policy. That will all put us on a collision course—it has the potential to drive crime up and to lose us the record that we have had to date. I am proud of what the Labour Government did. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) all praised the work of the previous Government.
We should remind ourselves of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said. The crime survey has shown that crime has fallen 43% since 1997, confidence in policing is up, violent crime fell by 42% in those 13 years, overall personal crime fell 41%, household crime fell 44%, vehicle crime fell, convictions rose, there are more people in prison and we have longer sentences. As a result of that, crime is down by 43% overall, as I said. I am not saying it was perfect, because it was not. If an individual is subject to a crime, to them it is 100% crime. [Interruption.] I am being heckled about reoffending rates, but those actually fell by 20% under the Labour Government. The number of new entrants into the criminal system also fell under the Labour Government, because we made the required investment in many areas.
Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we have record numbers of police officers—143,734 police officers and 16,000 police community support offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned that they value the fact that PCSOs provide that service on the streets, giving reassurance. Those officers were not there, in any shape or form before the previous Labour Government came to power. There are also 17,000 more police officers now than in 1997. That investment has made the difference in reducing crime. I simply put that on the record, because although what we did was not perfect, it shows that we made a difference for people in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom by reducing crime.
We did that not just because we put resources into policing and police community support officers, but because we also did what Tony Blair said we would do, which was try to tackle the causes of crime, as well as crime itself. The past three years have seen the youth crime action plan, putting money into prevention work across the country and supporting after-school activities, weekend initiatives and a range of measures to help tackle crime and the causes of crime; putting money into antisocial behaviour initiatives, with the thresholds that we set until March this year to try to encourage local councils to have minimum standards; and looking at issues such as family intervention projects and Sure Start. Indeed, the word “gobsmacked” came to mind when I heard a Conservative Member say how much they welcomed and enjoyed Sure Start. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—in a sedentary intervention, albeit a prescient one—said, “Aren’t the Conservative Government pledged to abolish Sure Start?” We will see in due course.
Tackling the causes of crime and putting resources into policing and police community support officers made a difference. Crime fell under the previous Labour Government. However, that is not to say that we would not have made savings had we been re-elected on 6 May. Indeed, let me point to the White Paper that I produced as Policing Minister in December last year, supported by my right hon. Friend the now shadow Home Secretary, to show that not only were we trying to take forward policing initiatives; we also recognised that we could, should and would have saved money by doing things more efficiently.
Those efficiencies included reducing the overtime bill by £70 million—the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made points about that—and developing national procurement standards for police officers’ uniforms, beat cars and air support, thereby saving resources in what our 43 forces do; standardising procurement of body armour; cutting stop-and-search paperwork; piloting the transfer of Crown prosecution powers to the police for lesser offences; and looking at encouraging voluntary mergers, with a £500 million fund that I put in place as Policing Minister for that purpose. Government Members raised the question of exposing and developing good practice. The Quest programme, which we supported, did just that; indeed, it extended it, including in Weaver Vale, Cheshire, Runcorn and Warrington. In total, savings of more than £1.3 billion by 2014 were identified by the then Labour Government.
Those savings would have been seen through by the Labour Government, but the choice that the Conservative Government are making is to go beyond that. They are doing what my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned, which is cutting public spending because they believe in cutting spending, not because they need to tackle the deficit now. That is the choice that the Conservative Government have made. Every right hon. and hon. Member on the Labour Benches went into the election with a commitment to maintain health, education, and policing and crime expenditure. We were elected on that basis—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary indicates that that is not correct, but that was in our manifesto, upon which we were elected. I confess that it did not reach the hearts of all parts of the country, but it secured us the mandate to argue today for that expenditure for the future.
What have we seen from the coalition Government? In July, we saw cuts of £125 million to a budget for this year that they agreed in February and which we proposed when we were on the Government Benches as Ministers. We are now seeing cuts of potentially 25 to 40% in the number of police officers, which, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East and for Salford and Eccles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, will damage the ability of police officers on the streets. I happen to contend that, funnily enough, investment in police officers and community support officers has meant that crime has fallen accordingly. The chief constables of Humberside, Gwent, Kent and Cambridgeshire have all predicted deep cuts that will have a profound impact on the crime-fighting abilities of their forces.
As if that were not enough, we find that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is starting to dismantle some of the policies that have made a real difference on the ground in our communities, including tackling antisocial behaviour through the use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am extremely surprised by that. I grew up in the 1980s, and I believed that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. That is what they told us, every week and every month. That is what they told us all the time. Now, antisocial behaviour orders have been shown to make a real difference on the ground in stopping antisocial behaviour, with 65% of recipients stopping offending when the ASBO is put in place, and 95% stopping after their third order has been issued. However, the Conservative coalition is going to dismantle that system.
The policing pledge, which sets minimum standards of service for the communities that we represent, is also going to be thrown out of the window by the Conservative coalition. The ability to use DNA to bring criminals to justice is also to be thrown out of the window, despite the fact that, in the debate on the Crime and Justice Bill before the election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported proposals under which people who had not been convicted of a crime—but who could potentially have been criminals—would have had their DNA stored. I look forward to a day that could be disastrous for the Government, if people are committing crimes when they could have been prevented from doing so. People could be killed, injured, raped or attacked, but individuals—[Interruption.] I say to the Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), that there are balances to be struck in this regard. An individual might have been caught by the police but not charged. His DNA might have been collected. In 90% of cases, according to our current research, such a person could potentially commit a crime in the future. I look forward to being able to say that we could have prevented some of those crimes from being committed.
The domestic violence protection orders, which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats did not oppose in the Bill in February, are now to be ditched by the Home Secretary.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving me this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we have not ditched domestic violence protection orders. We have deferred their introduction to ensure that, if we take the decision to carry on with them, they will be the most effective way of dealing with the issues that we all agree need to be dealt with. They have not been ditched.
Mr Hanson
We must look forward to the fact that two pilot schemes are being held back when they could have been developed.
On the issue of CCTV, there is certainly a need for regulation, but individual Government Back Benchers have said—[Interruption.] Well, when we were in government, we were considering proposals for regulation. The fact is, however, that the present Government believe in reducing the number of CCTV cameras and in ensuring that they are not deployed to the extent that we believe they should be. Hon. Members have given their views on that as well.
At the same time, a massive reorganisation of the police service is now pending, which will result in police forces taking their eye off the ball when it comes to fighting crime. The introduction of directly elected commissioners will cost £50 million. Nothing has yet been said about their roles and responsibilities, about who will set the precept, about qualifications or about staffing. The Government are developing a whole range of issues that will ensure that the police focus on reorganisation and not on their core business of fighting crime in the community at large.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned control orders, the fight against terrorism and the Prevent budget. These are serious issues, but the Government are setting the needs of what they view as civil liberties against the need to protect the community at large. Again, I look forward to examining those issues in detail, so that we can hold the Government to account on terrorism, international crime, drug running and regional crime.
The Labour party would have maintained the resources for fighting crime and developing policing. We would have increased the efficiency of the police service and allowed the police to look outwards to the public they serve. We would have strengthened the police authorities and ensured that crime continued to fall, as it did during the 13 years of the Labour Government. I look forward to taking on the Government on these issues. We will expose their softness on crime while ourselves adopting the position of the party of law and order. We shall expose their failings over the weeks, months and years ahead.
Extradition Review
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am today announcing to Parliament the Government’s plans to review the UK’s extradition arrangements.
The coalition’s programme for Government document published on 20 May, stated that
“We will review the operation of the Extradition Act—and the US/UK extradition treaty—to make sure it is even-handed”.
This announcement sets out how we propose to do this.
There are a number of areas of the UK’s extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The Government understand that these are long-standing concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK’s extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. These issues are:
breadth of Secretary of State discretion in an extradition case;
the operation of the European arrest warrant, including the way in which those of its safeguards which are optional have been transposed into UK law;
whether the forum bar to extradition should be commenced;
whether the US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced;
whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence.
The review will be conducted by a small panel of experts who we are now seeking to appoint. We expect the review to report by the end of the summer 2011.
Equality Act 2010
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Equality Act 2010 includes an integrated public sector Equality Duty. This will replace the existing race, disability and gender equality duties and is extended to cover age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment in full.
Schedule 19 to the Act lists certain bodies which will be subject to the duty. The Act contains a power allowing a Minister of the Crown to add bodies to this list and it also contains a power for a Minister of the Crown to impose specific duties on listed public bodies to help them in better performance of the duty.
On 19 August 2010 the Government published a consultation document setting out draft regulations for the new specific duties and proposing which bodies should be added to schedule 19 and subject to the specific duties.
The consultation period will run until 10 November 2010.
I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available on the Government Equalities Office website at: www.equalities.gov.uk.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. What progress is being made on the Government’s review of alcohol licensing.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are determined to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder. We launched the consultation “Rebalancing the Licensing Act” on 28 July. We have held seven national and seven regional stakeholder events to consult with the police, licensing authorities and representatives from the trade on the coalition Government’s proposals. The Government will be analysing the responses, and we intend to take forward the proposals in the forthcoming police reform and social responsibility Bill.
Nick Smith
The misuse of alcohol has a considerable negative impact on the health of our citizens, and it increases crime. What will the Government do to stop the inappropriate and excessive advertising of alcohol, often geared towards young people, in cinemas, on commercial TV stations and in TV storylines?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He is absolutely correct to raise the health impact of alcohol as well as its impact on crime. The most recent figures show that over the five years to 2008-09, there were 825 more alcohol-related admissions to hospital per day than during the previous five years. This is a very real issue. We are considering a number of actions in relation to the sale of alcohol, the unit cost of alcohol and the powers of licensing authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific proposal, I suggest that he puts it to the Home Office as part of the consultation.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The media often focus attention on celebrities and footballers as poor role models for children, but does the Home Secretary recognise the sad fact that almost 1 million children have an alcohol-dependent parent as a role model? What more can the Government do to prevent so many families from being broken by alcohol abuse?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend also raises an important point about the impact that alcohol can have. He has taken an interest in such issues, particularly the impact on family life, for some time. The first thing for the Government is to give a clear message about alcohol through the action that we take on licensing. Sadly, a message was given by the last Government, with their 24-hour licensing laws that were due to create a café culture in the United Kingdom, but failed to do so. We have seen that leading to more problems with alcohol.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
What plans does the Home Secretary have to ensure that licensed premises apply effective age verification procedures?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman also raises an important point about trying to ensure that alcohol is used responsibly and that those with responsibility to ensure that alcohol is being consumed or purchased only by those of an age to do so should act appropriately. One of the issues that we are looking at specifically in our proposals is the action that can be taken against shops or bars found to be persistently selling alcohol to children. We are considering giving greater powers to councils and police to shut such premises down permanently.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
3. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are committed to making substantial reforms to their public bodies and intend to bring forward a public bodies Bill later this year, giving Ministers the power to abolish or merge public bodies, or transfer their functions back into Departments. The Home Office is pursuing radical reforms as part of a Government-wide review of public bodies and I have already signalled my intentions by announcing the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
Mr Carswell
The Association of Chief Police Officers, or ACPO, is not a conventional non-departmental public body. As a private company, it receives millions of pounds in Home Office grants, has a massive say over how we are policed, is exempt from freedom of information requests and is almost totally unaccountable. Is that status compatible with the Home Secretary’s admirable desire to democratise control over policing? Will she either change ACPO’s status or stop giving it so many grants and so much say over public policy?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has referred to our intention to change the accountability of police forces, set out in our consultation document “Policing in the 21st Century”. We also said in that document that we are looking to change the role of ACPO and talking to ACPO about the necessary changes. Moving ACPO on to a basis of leading in setting standards and showing professional leadership in the police force is the appropriate way forward, and that is what we will be talking to the organisation about.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
While the right hon. Lady is looking at her review, will she consider what happens with the funding of sexual assault referral centres, or SARCs, in Wales? Wales SARCs are still awaiting their funding. It is important that the services they provide should be carried forward for women, children and men who have been subject to rape and other sexual offences. Will she please have a look at that issue?
Mrs May
I am certainly happy to do so. At the moment we are considering, and will soon be making an announcement on, some funding in relation to SARCs. As we look at the issues of people who have been subjected to sexual abuse, we need to consider not only the SARCs but rape crisis centres. It was a great shame that under the hon. Lady’s Government, the last Labour Government, so many rape crisis centres had to shut because of funding problems. That is why as a coalition we are committed to making money available from the victim surcharge to open new rape crisis centres.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
11. What progress has been made on her Department’s review of the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 and the US-UK extradition treaty.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The coalition agreement committed the Government to reviewing the UK’s extradition arrangements worldwide, to ensure that they operate effectively and in the interests of justice. The review will examine both our extradition arrangements with the United States and our operation of the European arrest warrant. I will make an announcement to Parliament on the chairmanship and terms of reference of the review shortly.
Tony Baldry
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is general concern that the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 are lop-sided so far as they apply to the United States. Our relationship with the United States has always been based on mutual trust, and concerns about the workings of the Extradition Act are not helping to reinforce that mutual trust. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance and an undertaking that once her review has been completed, if it demonstrates that the provisions and workings of the Extradition Act are lop-sided she will bring forward amending legislation to this House?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I reflect, as he does, on the importance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, but I am also aware, obviously, of comments that have been made outside the House and inside this Chamber about the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA. That is why I think it entirely right for the coalition Government to have agreed that we will not only review that treaty but address the issue more widely and review the operation of European arrest warrants, about which hon. Members—particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends—have also expressed some concerns in this Chamber. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review, but, as I said, I will be making more details of the review available to the House shortly.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary understand that, in addition to the lop-sided nature of the legislation, there is a further issue that prejudices British citizens, namely the willingness of American courts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and entertain prosecutions in circumstances where doing so would simply not be permitted in this country? Will that second issue also form part of her review?
Mrs May
Let me say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as I have indicated, I am well aware of the range of concerns that exist in relation to the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA. That is why the coalition Government have agreed that we should have this review of the extradition treaty and take it more widely, looking at all our extradition arrangements to ensure that they operate effectively and in the interests of justice.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I have a constituent who has already been extradited under the treaty. In following his case, I certainly agree with recent remarks by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who concluded that perhaps the previous Government gave away too much. Whatever the outcome of the review, I hope that, on that point at least, the Home Secretary will be able to agree with both me and her predecessor.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is tempting me down a route that I do not think is appropriate—to agree the outcome of the review in respect of its assessment of the current extradition treaty. That is not appropriate as it would undermine the whole point of having a review—details of which will be announced shortly—which is to ensure a proper process for considering the issues—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the natural temptation to do otherwise, but if the Home Secretary would face the House when she replies, it would help all of us. I think that she has concluded her response.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
During the recess, the Home Office presented proposals to fulfil a number of key coalition commitments, including a clampdown on rogue private sector wheel-clampers and the introduction of a system of temporary bans on “legal highs”.
Stuart Andrew
Further to an answer that was given earlier, may I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend for banning the recent planned English Defence League march in Bradford? Will she join me in praising the officers of West Yorkshire police for the professional way in which they dealt with a very difficult and potentially volatile situation? What further steps will she take to tackle extremism in this country?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which does indeed relate to one that was asked earlier. I am happy to commend the actions of West Yorkshire police, and, indeed, to commend the people of Bradford on ensuring that their community cohesion was not undermined by those who wish to create division and difference in our society. As was made clear earlier by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the Government are committed to ensuring that peaceful protest can take place, but also committed to ensuring that proper action is taken when people wish protest to be a means of causing violence and division in our community.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
T2. During the recess I spent a day with police on the Grangewood estate in Chesterfield, meeting people there. Grangewood has suffered tremendously from antisocial behaviour in the past. The police were certain that, when properly employed, antisocial behaviour orders were an incredibly successful and effective way of reducing the incidence of antisocial behaviour. Why do we not continue to give the police a vital tool that will help them to reduce the incidence of such behaviour in their community?
Mrs May
We do indeed intend to ensure that the police have the tools that enable them to tackle antisocial behaviour, which, sadly, occurs too often in too many places, despite the last Labour Government’s introduction of a wide range of sometimes complex initiatives. The figures show that too much antisocial behaviour takes place, and people know that too much of it takes place in their neighbourhoods. We are committed to reviewing the powers that are available to the police to ensure that they can deal with it effectively.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
T3. In Wimbledon, we have a thriving language school sector and there will be widespread support for today’s announcement that there will be action on overstayers on student visas, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the review that he undertakes will ensure that there is no discrimination against genuine applicants?
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
If the Home Secretary and the Government are serious about reducing and eradicating violence against women, why is it that they have only recently decided to opt out of a new European directive to combat human trafficking?
Mrs May
We are, indeed, committed to ensuring that we take action against violence against women, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last Labour Government took 12 years to develop a strategy on that. We will produce our strategy on ending violence against women within one year of coming into office, and it will cover a wide range of subjects. In looking at European Union directives, I take a very simple approach: is signing up to a particular directive to the benefit of the United Kingdom? Happily, most of the provisions in the European directive on human trafficking are already being acted on by the United Kingdom, because we take that issue extremely seriously.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T4. Last week, Brooke Kinsella visited the Corner House youth project in Stockton, which has been very successful in highlighting, through talks and special activities, the dangers associated with knives. Will the Minister consider implementing similar programmes in constituencies such as mine which, tragically, have only recently once again had a serious knife crime incident?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Does localism extend as far as consulting local communities about any proposals to cut safer neighbourhood teams?
Mrs May
In relation to the police and localism, we are ensuring that there is a more direct link between local people and policing in their community through the introduction of the ability for them to elect a directly accountable police and crime commissioner whose responsibility it will be to ensure that local policing delivers what local people want. We will also ensure that, through neighbourhood meetings and crime maps, people are aware of what is going on in their community and are able to hold the police directly accountable for what is happening in it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
T5. Last week on ITV a programme about community payback showed offenders on community payback smoking cannabis and not being properly supervised. How can we be sure that community payback means exactly that?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary cut the police budget for this year she included cuts to vital counter-terrorism work. Will she take the opportunity to create some common ground across the Chamber by sending out a strong message to terrorists that she will protect counter-terrorism funding in the budget for next year?
Mrs May
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Government will ensure that we maintain our fight against terrorism. As he says, this is something on which views are shared across this Chamber; all Members of this House want to see us combat the threat of terrorism effectively. We will certainly do all that we can to do that.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
T7. Will the Secretary of State tell us what representations have been received from police and members of the youth offending teams regarding their concerns about youth offenders who do not comply with the licence conditions, in particular the community element, of detention and training orders?
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary read Saturday’s Yorkshire Post and the appeal made by the Archbishop of York, on his knees, as it were, to the Government asking them to opt in to the EU directive on sex slave trafficking. The Home Secretary is right to say that there are many measures in law in this country that deal with that, as there are in other EU member states. However, the point is that we need to send a signal to the pimps and traffickers that we are co-operating at a European level. It took three or four years to get the Council of Europe convention adopted—that was against the opposition of the Home Office in the previous Government. Do not stand on the side of the pimps and traffickers; stand with the Archbishop of York and the victims of this terrible trade.
Mrs May
Sadly, I did not read the Yorkshire Post on Saturday—I was far too busy reading the Maidenhead Advertiser—but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the comments made by the Archbishop of York on this matter. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has, over a number of years, taken this issue extremely seriously and has spoken up on behalf of women who have been trafficked into the sex trade in this country. It is right to say that we need to take all the action that we can to combat that terrible, terrible trade. However, I repeat what I have said in answer to an earlier question: most of the elements of the EU human trafficking directive are being adopted already in the United Kingdom, because we all take this issue very seriously.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
T8. Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to take forward the suggestion of the anti-terrorism expert, Dr Marc Sageman, that the transcripts of trials where terrorists are convicted should be published in full, in order to educate communities of the stupidity, moral poverty and criminal hatred of the people convicted in such cases?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which concerns an issue that he raised with me on the Floor of the House on 13 July. I am grateful for the letter that he sent me to follow up on that exchange, and I have passed that correspondence on to the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for considering the publication of trial transcripts and is examining the possibility of making available more information—more transcripts—about remarks made by judges when sentencing. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on this matter shortly.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Police community support officers have become an essential part of local communities in Nottingham and elsewhere, so what reassurance can the Minister offer on this matter to my constituents, who are worried that the cuts in policing proposed by the Government will lead to a reduction in their number?
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am indeed very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Prime Minister and his wife Samantha on the safe delivery of their daughter, Florence, who as my hon. Friend said has a Cornish name as well. I am sure that the Prime Minister and his wife were very pleased to have been protected and kept safe while they were in Cornwall by the appropriate local constabulary.
Phone Tapping
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking by the News of the World newspaper.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In December 2005, the Metropolitan police began an investigation focusing on alleged security breaches within telephone networks after concerns were raised by members of the royal household at Clarence house. That investigation resulted in the prosecution and conviction of the News of the World royal editor, Clive Goodman, in 2007 for unlawfully intercepting the phone messages of staff in the royal household. A private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, was also convicted and jailed for intercepting the phones of a number of people.
That investigation has already been reviewed by the Metropolitan police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, who all concluded that the investigation was proper and appropriate. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport also previously examined the scope and nature of the police investigation, and the previous Government updated the House on these matters in July 2009 and took no further action. Hon. Members will be aware that there have recently been allegations connected to that investigation in The New York Times.
Any police investigation is an operational matter in which Ministers have no role. I understand that the original investigation was complex and was informed by high-level legal advice. As a result of that investigation, as I have said, two individuals were successfully prosecuted. The police have made it clear that during the investigation there was early and regular consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, so that the lines of inquiry followed were likely to produce the best evidence. The CPS had full access to all the evidence gathered, and the final indictment appropriately represented the criminality uncovered. The Metropolitan police have indicated that if there is further evidence, they will look at it. That is the right course of action, and it is right for the Government to await the outcome.
Mr Watson
Claim No. 1: there is no new evidence; there is. Claim No. 2: people were cleared by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee; they were not. Claim No. 3: a single, rogue reporter was responsible; he was not—the inquiry heard that a second News of the World reporter, Ross Hall, transcribed illegally hacked phone messages. He has not been interviewed by the police. He sent the now notorious e-mail to News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, reporter No. 3, who has not been interviewed by the police. Last week, former News of the World reporter Sean Hoare testified that when he worked for the paper his bosses instructed him to hack into phones. He has not been interviewed by the police.
A fifth reporter, Sharon Marshall, confirmed to The New York Times that she witnessed phone hacking while working for the News of the World. As far as we know, she has not been interviewed by the police. Last week, News International confirmed that a sixth reporter has been suspended for alleged phone hacking. As far as we know, he has not been interviewed by the police.
John Yates said that he had interviewed many reporters. Well, who? How many people were on Mulcaire’s target lists? How many were notified that their name was on the lists? How many phone numbers, PINs and suspected computer passwords were on the lists? What other personal and private information was recovered? Most importantly, who decided, according to what criteria and on whose authority, which victims were investigated and which were not, and who was notified?
Can the Home Secretary confirm that former Prime Minister Tony Blair has formally asked Scotland Yard whether his phone was hacked into? The integrity of our democracy is under scrutiny around the world; the Home Secretary must not join the conspiracy to make it a laughing stock.
Mrs May
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he says that there is new evidence. As far as I can see, allegations have been made in a newspaper. The Metropolitan police have made it clear that if there is fresh evidence, they will consider it. Secondly, as Home Secretary I consider it appropriate that the Government take the view that it is for the Metropolitan police to decide what is the right course of action on an operational matter. As I said in response to the urgent question, it is appropriate for this Government to wait for the outcome.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
As the Home Secretary indicated, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee spent a considerable time examining this matter in the previous Parliament. We reported our conclusions to the House and we stand by them. We certainly found it very difficult to believe that Clive Goodman was the only member of the News of the World newsroom who was aware that phone hacking had been carried out by Glenn Mulcaire, but we found no evidence to suggest that the then editor knew of it. If there is credible new evidence, that would obviously be a matter for the police, but perhaps the Home Secretary could give an assurance that the Select Committee will be informed of the outcome of any investigation.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is helpful of him to put before the House what happened in the Select Committee inquiry on the matter. As I have said, it is for the Metropolitan police to consider fresh evidence, if any comes forward, and I am sure that the Select Committee will be kept informed of any developments.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Mr Justice Gross said in the case of Mulcaire and Goodman that it was not about press freedom, but about a
“grave, inexcusable and illegal invasion of privacy.”
Last year, I was assured that the Metropolitan Police Service had not received any allegations in respect of other News of the World journalists. I was also told that the Metropolitan police had taken all proper steps to ensure that where there was evidence of phone tapping, or any suspicion of it, the individuals concerned would be informed.
The Home Secretary will be aware of the claims by The New York Times to have spoken to over a dozen former News of the World reporters, and to at least one of its former editors, who say that phone tapping was pervasive. Furthermore the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), a very distinguished Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said:
“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman. To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.”
Does the Home Secretary agree that this stone has to be lifted, and that she must subject the actions of the Metropolitan police in this case to greater scrutiny in the light of this allegation and the new revelations from The New York Times? The original investigation, we are told, uncovered 2,978 mobile phone numbers of potential victims and 91 PIN codes. Can the right hon. Lady ascertain how many of the people concerned have now been informed?
When I was Home Secretary dealing with this case, there was nobody anywhere in Government who was implicated. Now there is. The Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister have lectured the House many times about their perception of the surveillance state created by the previous Government. It appears that they may have their very own expert on the matter in charge of Government communications. Can she assure me that Andy Coulson will not be involved in any way in the Government’s response to the latest allegations? Does she agree with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who told Parliament last year that
“it is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to be a Prime Minister, employs Andy Coulson who, at best, was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and, at worst, was personally implicated in criminal activity”?
“The exact parallel”,
said the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne),
“is surely with Damian McBride. If the Prime Minister was right to sack him, should not the Leader of the Opposition sack Andy Coulson?”—[Official Report, 9 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 1132.]
I agree with those sentiments expressed by the right hon. Lady’s Cabinet colleague—does she?
Mrs May
I will take first the issue that the shadow Home Secretary raised about the number of people involved who may or may not have had telephone calls intercepted. Assistant Commissioner Yates made it clear in his interview on the “Today” programme this morning that there are—[Interruption.] Labour Members may tut, but Assistant Commissioner Yates was interviewed on the matter this morning and made it clear that there is often a misunderstanding between somebody’s name appearing on a list and that person assuming that they have therefore had their phone intercepted. He made it clear—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must exercise a degree of self-restraint. I am trying to help the House by facilitating an exchange on this important matter. The responses of the Home Secretary must be heard.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can quote from that interview, where Assistant Commissioner Yates said:
“There’s a misunderstanding here which suggests just because your name features in a private investigator’s files, you have been hacked.”
He went on to explain that that was not the case.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) also raised the issue in relation to Mr Coulson. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has made clear, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee investigated the matter, it concluded:
“We have seen no evidence that”
the then editor
“Andy Coulson, knew.”
That was the decision taken by the Select Committee of the House.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, he looked at the issue last year. He looked at what had happened and the way it had been handled, and he said that he was reassured.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
As a member of the Select Committee, I recall that we had evidence that hundreds of people who are the victims in the matter appeared on lists. They would like to know whether information was illegally gathered from them, and the Metropolitan police will not tell them. Secondly, they would like to know what information was illegally gathered and with whom that information was shared. Surely the only way of getting to the bottom of this is a proper judicial inquiry so that people are compelled to give evidence and they give that evidence on oath.
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that the matter has been investigated by the Metropolitan police, who did so in very close co-operation with the Crown Prosecution Service and with leading counsel. The matter has also been looked at by the Select Committee of the House. The findings of that Select Committee are clear. The findings of the Metropolitan police at the time that they investigated the matter and then looked again at it last July are also clear. Two individuals were prosecuted as a result of that investigation. The Metropolitan police have made it clear that if fresh evidence is there, they will look at that fresh evidence.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that, in circumstances in which Members of this House may not have their telephone communications intercepted by the police or the security service, it would be totally unacceptable for their communications to be intercepted unlawfully by newspapers? Does she accept, on the evidence of what has been said in the House this afternoon, that there has been a distinct lack of zeal on the part of the Metropolitan police in looking into these accusations?
Mrs May
Far from that, the Metropolitan police investigated these matters when they were first raised. The matter was considered again in July 2009, when the then Policing Minister, on behalf of the then Home Secretary, who was absent from the House that day, came to the House in response to an urgent question and, as a result of that, indicated that the Labour Government were taking no further action in relation to the matter.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Home Secretary let the cat out of the bag by showing that this is a rather thinly veiled attempt to try to make as much political capital as possible instead of actually trying to get to the bottom of what happened? Everything that we have heard today has been thoroughly covered in the Select Committee report; there is absolutely nothing new. We took up the concerns about the Metropolitan police’s investigation at the time, when Assistant Commissioner Yates said, regarding the failure to conduct wider interviews during our Select Committee hearings:
“perhaps in 2006 it ought to have been done; I do not know, but in 2009 that is going to take us absolutely nowhere.”
Can my right hon. Friend ensure that we do not waste any more time and effort on trying to make political capital out of flogging an old horse?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has referred to the Select Committee report’s findings on this matter, to which I and others have also referred. As for his initial observations about the reasons behind this issue, I simply say that those who are watching will see the nature of and manner in which some of the points are being raised by Labour Members of Parliament.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble is that the police have not investigated even where there is new information and new evidence. Last summer, I wrote to the Metropolitan police and asked whether, to their knowledge, from the material that they had gained from Mr Mulcaire, I was a person of interest to him. They replied that I was, and they suggested that I ring my mobile company, which then informed me that my phone had indeed been interfered with. I told the police this months ago; they have done absolutely nothing about it.
I say in all seriousness to the Home Secretary that there may well be dozens of right hon. and hon. Members whose phones have been intercepted—several people on the Government Front Bench at the moment, as well as those on the Opposition Benches. Surely the least that she could do is write to the Metropolitan police to ask them to notify every single right hon. and hon. Member who was a subject of that investigation of the fact that they were involved, and then they can choose whether to investigate further.
Mrs May
At the time of the investigation, the Metropolitan police made it clear that those people whose phones they believed had been intercepted were contacted by members of the Metropolitan police. The hon. Gentleman has had an exchange with them on this matter. I come back to the point that I made earlier: the police have said on many occasions that if fresh evidence were to come forward they would look at it. It is not for the Government to look at that evidence; it is for the Government to await the outcome of any such investigation should that arise.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In terms of what the Metropolitan police have and have not said, can my right hon. Friend confirm that they have now made it clear, on the record, that the press department of the Metropolitan police in no way interfered with the handling of this case?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Last year, when Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary looked at the issue and the then Government were absolutely clear that there was no need to take any further action in relation to the investigation by the Metropolitan police.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has repeatedly prayed in aid the Select Committee report in support of her decision not to take any further action. I have been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and have experience of how Select Committees can go only so far. When judicial reviews are then conducted, however, all sorts of evidence suddenly comes out to which Select Committees simply have no access. I urge the Home Secretary not to take comfort from the Select Committee but to make further inquiries and force the Metropolitan police at least to take some serious action rather than hiding behind procedure.
Mrs May
As I indicated earlier, such operational matters about whether to investigate particular individuals are for the police. We should jealously guard the operational independence of the police. I say to the hon. Lady, and to any other right hon. or hon. Members on the Labour Benches who think that I as Home Secretary should take it upon myself to tell members of the police force who they should or should not investigate, that that is a very slippery slope down which neither I nor this Government intend to go.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the straightforward fact is that the Metropolitan police can investigate, the Crown Prosecution Service can advise that there should be a charge, and prosecuting counsel can draft an indictment only if there is supporting evidence? Does not this all turn on a simple point? If The New York Times or any individuals believe that they have new evidence, is it not simply a matter of their making that evidence available for the Metropolitan police to investigate and allowing the police to get on with their job?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
If this Government claim to be whiter than white, why did the top spinner at No. 10 Downing street learn his trade in the phone-tapping News of the World run by Murdoch? If this murky affair rumbles on, will the Prime Minister come and make a statement about relieving Coulson of his job?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) seems to have forgotten about the existence of Alastair Campbell.
Has my right hon. Friend been given any indication at all about why people have suddenly come forward now to give evidence to The New York Times, given that they did not see fit to come forward at the time to give evidence to the police?
Mrs May
I have seen no explanation of why the issue has suddenly come forward in The New York Times at this particular time. However, as I have repeated, if evidence is available, the police have made it clear that they will investigate it. I have also said in response to another hon. Member that I understand that The New York Times is making it clear that it will not be bringing forward new evidence.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell the House what meetings or conversations the Mayor of London has had with the Metropolitan police in relation to this matter?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the seriousness of these new allegations, many in this House and across the country will be surprised that the Home Secretary has not even shown a degree of concern about potential shortcomings in the police investigation. Is she really entirely satisfied that everything is as it should have been, or is she determined not to have a view?
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Lady any knowledge of how many of the 91 PIN codes involved were default numbers and how many were people’s own selected numbers? If she does have that, the issue is much more serious than has been indicated thus far. Default PINs can be obtained from the manufacturer, but others take sophisticated technology to obtain and only a very large operation could achieve that.
Mrs May
I will make the point that I made earlier. We are faced with a situation in which a number of allegations have been made in The New York Times. The Metropolitan police have made it clear that if fresh evidence is brought forward they will investigate it. As far as the Government are concerned, I believe it is appropriate for us to await the outcome.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary asked whether her name is on the list?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Home Secretary had a chance to read the report published this May by the Information Commissioner on the unlawful and widespread trade in confidential personal information, and does she agree with the Information Commissioner that there should now be a custodial sentence of up to two years in respect of the offences in question?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue about sentencing, which of course is in the remit of the Secretary of State for Justice rather than the Home Department. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a review of sentencing is taking place, and I am sure that if he wishes to make representations to that review they will be welcomed.
Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
As a long-serving member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I am proud of the fact that under the previous Chair and the current respected Chair, we have worked as a team irrespective of party political views. I am delighted that I have colleagues who are taking advantage of the political aspect of this matter, but may I ask the Home Secretary to ensure that she is not tempted to go on the defensive? This issue is much more important than party politics, and it has to be tackled for the sake of our democracy. I hope that she will do that.
Mrs May
I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard the response that I gave to the question that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee asked about its being kept informed of any developments. However, it is important that as Home Secretary I am absolutely clear about where the division of action lies between the Government—a political party—and the operational independence of the Metropolitan police or indeed any other police force in this country.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Home Secretary referred earlier to the comments of Assistant Commissioner Yates on the Radio 4 programme this morning. The assistant commissioner also made it clear that the police have relationships with journalists, in this case from the News of the World. Can the Home Secretary tell me who polices that relationship and how we know whether there is any self-interest in the lack of progress on this matter? I appreciate that the Government will not want to get into that, but should the Independent Police Complaints Commission be asked to examine that relationship to ensure that nothing interferes with police matters and with justice being seen to be done?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady refers to a lack of progress on this matter, but the position is absolutely clear. The use of phone interception by a journalist at the News of the World was investigated, two individuals were prosecuted as a result of that investigation and the matter was looked at again in July 2009. The Metropolitan police looked very closely at the investigation in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service and counsel, and in July 2009 the previous Government examined the matter and decided that no further action should be taken. As regards a lack of progress today, the police have made it absolutely clear that if fresh evidence is available, they will look at it.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As a telecommunications engineer, I have helped build such networks, so I am aware of their security gaps. That is why I am concerned that the Home Secretary does not seem to recognise the implications of the matter for everyone in the country. Such cyber-criminality could be an increasing part of all our lives, and if the police do not have the will to pursue each and every case, it is up to her to give them the tools and incentive to do so.
Mrs May
As I hoped I had made clear in response to several questions, the police have made it clear that if fresh evidence is introduced, they will look at it in relation to the case. The implicit suggestion—that somehow the police do not have the tools to examine cybercrime—is not appropriate to the matter that we are considering.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State recall that the Mayor of London intervened in the case of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when he received information from the Home Office? Surely, when the Secretary of State is told by an hon. Member that a phone company has told him that his phone line was compromised, but that the police had not notified him of that, she cannot be confident that the Metropolitan police have notified everybody who was subject to tapping. Surely she has a duty, on behalf of all those individuals, and for natural justice, to meet the Metropolitan police to ensure that everyone on that list is contacted and can go back and check with their phone companies.
Mrs May
The issue of contacting people who were on the list, and of whether their phones had been intercepted, was raised when the initial investigation took place and, I believe, in evidence that was given to the Select Committee and to the interviewer this morning by Assistant Commissioner Yates. The implication from several Opposition Members is that the Metropolitan police somehow failed in their duty on the matter, but they investigated the issue, people were prosecuted and they have made it clear that they will look into any further evidence that comes forward.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Last year, an elderly BBC journalist made a statement in a magazine that he had assisted in the death of a partner some years previously. The police investigated that statement. Now, several journalists and at least one Member of the House have made new statements, yet we are told that there is no new evidence. At what point will the Watergate scandal that is encompassing British politics be investigated?
European Investigation Order
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the draft directive for a European investigation order, and the Government’s decision to opt into that draft directive.
As people have become more mobile, so too has crime, and that has serious consequences for our ability to bring criminals to justice. To deal with cross-border crime, countries enter into mutual legal assistance—MLA—agreements. Those agreements provide a framework through which states can obtain evidence from overseas. MLA has therefore been an important tool in the fight against international crime and terrorism. It has been crucial in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Hussein Osman, one of the failed terrorists from the 21/7 attacks five years ago, might not have been convicted had it not been for evidence obtained through MLA.
However, MLA has not been without its faults. The process is fragmented and confusing for the police and prosecutors, and it is too often too slow. In some cases it takes many months to obtain vital evidence. Indeed, in one drug trafficking case the evidence arrived in the UK after the trial had been completed. The European investigation order is intended to address those problems by simplifying the system, through a standardised request form and by providing formal deadlines for the recognition and execution of requests.
The Government have decided to opt into the EIO because it offers practical help for the British police and prosecutors, and we are determined to do everything we can to help them cut crime and deliver justice. That is what the police say the EIO will do. We wrote to every Association of Chief Police Officers force about the EIO, and not one said that we should not opt in. ACPO itself replied that
“the EIO is a simpler instrument than those already in existence and, provided it is used sensibly and for appropriate offences, we welcome attempts to simplify and expedite mutual legal assistance.”
However, I know that some hon. Members have concerns about the EIO, and I should like to address them in turn. The first is on the question of sovereignty. In justice and home affairs, there are many ideas coming out of Brussels, such as a common asylum policy, that would involve an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I will not sign up to those proposals, and I have made that clear to my European counterparts. However, the EIO directive does not incur a shift in sovereignty. It is a practical measure that will make it easier to see justice—British justice—done in this country.
The second concern is about burdens on the police. At a time when we are reducing domestic regulatory burdens on the police, I agree that it would be unacceptable to have them re-imposed by foreign forces. That is why we will seek to ensure that there is a proportionality test, so that police forces are not obliged to do work in relation to trivial offences, and that forces will be able to extend deadlines when it is not possible to meet them. I want to be clear that the EIO will not allow foreign authorities to instruct UK police officers on what operations to conduct, and it will not allow foreign officers to operate in the UK with law enforcement powers.
The third concern is about legal safeguards. We will seek to maintain the draft directive’s requirement that evidence should be obtained by coercive means, for example through searching a premises, only where the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. Requests for evidence from foreign authorities will still require completion of the same processes as in similar domestic cases. In order to search a house, for example, police officers will still need to obtain a warrant.
The execution of the EIO must be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That means that there must be a clear link between the alleged criminality and the assistance requested, otherwise complying with the request would be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR, on private and family life.
By opting in to the EIO at this stage, we have the opportunity to influence its precise content. We know that the existing draft is not perfect, and we are confident that we will be able to change it in negotiations. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones has already had discussions with her German counterpart, and we are confident that we will shape the draft directive so that it helps us to fight crime and deliver justice while protecting civil liberties and avoiding unduly burdening the police. That is why the civil liberties group, Justice, says that
“on balance it is better for the UK to engage in this area than be ousted onto the periphery of evidence in cross border cases.”
I ask hon. Members to remember this: the EIO will apply to both prosecutors and defence lawyers, which means that it can be used to prove British subjects innocent abroad, as well as to prosecute the guilty at home.
The EIO will allow us to fight crime and deliver justice more effectively. It does not amount to a loss of sovereignty. It will not unduly burden the police. It will not incur a loss of civil liberties. It is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I do not want to worry the right hon. Lady unduly at our daily meeting, but I broadly welcome this statement. I suspect that I am just a short preliminary to the real opposition on the matter, which is the Brokeback tendency behind her. [Hon. Members: “Bareback!”] Or bareback tendency, even, which adds a whole new dimension.
We supported the Stockholm programme in December, which included the decision that a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued, not least because as the Home Secretary said, the current framework consists of a whole series of instruments that are fragmentary and repetitive. They hamper cross-border investigation at a time when the international dimension, particularly of serious organised crime, is of increasing importance.
There is a clear need for a comprehensive, legally binding single instrument to provide a definitive framework for cross-border investigations. That should not be conflated with the European prosecutor proposal, which we were firmly against. Perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that failure to opt into the current instrument would leave the UK with the existing unsatisfactory and fragmentary provision, thus putting us at a disadvantage in the fight against cross-border crime. In contrast, as she said, opting in will allow us to negotiate further safeguards. Does she agree that those should include greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should not that include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stage?
I agree with the Home Secretary that there should be a proportionality test, as with the European evidence warrant, which I believe the UK will no longer be obliged to implement if we sign up to the EIO. Can she confirm that that is the case?
The human rights organisation, Justice, has indeed urged the Government to opt into the instrument, but it has raised a number of concerns about the initial draft. What discussions have the Secretary of State or her Ministers had with that organisation, and does she agree with its analysis?
It is good to see that the Government have recognised that cross-border crime is a serious concern. The Home Secretary’s party opposed the European arrest warrant, principally, I believe, because it contained the word “European”. I am glad that she is not repeating that mistake, and in welcoming her statement, I hope that will rethink her approach on second generation biometric passports so that as with the EIO, British citizens are not left behind as security measures in the rest of the European Union become more effective.
Mrs May
I welcome the positive and constructive approach that the right hon. Gentleman has taken today. Sadly, we are about to go into recess, so he and I must find a means of meeting other than across the Dispatch Box in the coming weeks. He made a number of points and made a passing reference to the Stockholm programme. Of course, this Government did not support everything in that. We are treating each justice and home affairs issue on a case-by-case basis, so we will decide to opt in to some things, such as the EIO, and to opt out of others.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm the impact of a failure to opt in. Failure to opt in would indeed leave UK police and prosecutors in a very unfortunate position, because it would mean that they must rely on existing MLA agreements to obtain evidence from overseas. It is intended that forces from which evidence is requested will meet a timetable contained within the EIO. I suspect that because of that, the practical reality of opting out is that UK requests would go to the bottom of the pile. The figures are stark—70% to 75% of our MLA requests are with other EU member states—so failure to opt in would have a significant impact.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the European evidence warrant. The directive makes it clear that the EEW will be repealed and replaced by the EIO. He also mentioned the European arrest warrant. Of course, it is important that people should not get mixed up between the EIO and the EAW. We took a view different from that of the previous Government on the EAW when they signed up to it, but our review of extradition will include a review of the EAW.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about safeguards. As I said in my statement, it will be necessary in the case of certain requests—for example, for the search of premises —to have the safeguard of proper consideration, because a warrant will be required, as is the normal course of events if the UK police choose to search premises.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am deeply concerned that the EIO has not been considered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was formally set up last night, and nor have many other important matters. The legal basis is qualified majority voting, co-decision and the European Court of Justice under the Lisbon treaty. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the EIO applies to all investigative measures, and that it gives undue rights to police officers from other European countries to order our police to gather sensitive personal information —and, furthermore, DNA and banking records—in relation to non-criminal matters, and from those who are not even suspects? The grounds for refusing an EIO request are totally inadequate, and I am sure that the ESC will demand a debate and call evidence, but regrettably, it cannot do so until 8 September, because it has not been called to sit until then.
Mrs May
I must tell my hon. Friend that decisions on when the ESC meets are rather more a matter for him—as I understand it, he is the Chair of that Committee—than for me. However, I share some of his concern. As he and other Members of the House will know, I have written a pamphlet and proposed a 10-point plan on how Parliament can have more of an opportunity to have a say on, and to debate, decisions on European matters.
The instrument came before the Government on 29 April with a three-month deadline for decision. Of course, that period was partly taken up by the election, and the ESC was formed only last night, as my hon. Friend said. In the normal course of events in Parliament, the ESC could suggest the matter for debate. On that point, it is certainly my hope that when the Government propose to opt in on a major JHA issue, Parliament can consider it. However, I hesitate to give more of a guarantee than that, because what happens in Parliament is a matter for the business managers rather than for me. On the powers that my hon. Friend claims the EIO gives to foreign police forces and others, I must tell him that I think he is wrong.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the new-found affection between the Front Benchers, and take that one stage further by agreeing with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for the first time on a European issue? It is really important for Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise this decision. We have just had a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee. The Police Minister gave evidence about police resources, but we could not question him on the EIO, because the Home Secretary was due to make this statement. This is a serious matter that requires scrutiny by the ESC or the Home Affairs Committee.
The Home Secretary made a statement to the House that the EIO will not have an effect on police resources, and the Police Minister, in his excellent evidence to the Committee, talked about the need to preserve police resources, but a request from one of our European partners will result in more police time being spent. That must be the case, because they would not make such a request otherwise.
Mrs May
I agree that it would be of benefit for Parliament to scrutinise and debate many such European matters more than has happened in the past. However, given that we are up against a deadline and going into recess, it would have been very easy for me simply to have made a written ministerial statement. Instead, I chose to come to make an oral statement so that I could answer questions on the EIO.
On police resources, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we intend and hope to introduce a proportionality test in the negotiations, which is important. However, the EIO is not some new arrangement that will suddenly require extra police resources. Rather, it codifies and simplifies processes that already exist. To the extent that it reduces bureaucracy and simplifies those processes, I hope that it will be of extra benefit to our police.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many of us were elected on a programme of no more powers whatever passing to the European Union. Given that the Home Secretary promised us that no sovereignty would be transferred by the EIO, will she reassure us of that by putting into the draft proposal a simple clause that says that Britain can withdraw from the arrangement at any time if it proves to be not as advertised? If we have that clause, we are sovereign; if we do not have it, we are not sovereign. [Interruption.]
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for that sedentary intervention.
I did make that statement on sovereignty in relation to the EIO. We are opting in to the draft directive, over which there will be negotiations in the coming months. However, I said what I said because the order and the directive are not about sovereignty moving to Europe, but about making a practical step of co-operation to ensure that it will be easier for us not only to fight crime, but crucially, to ensure that justice is done.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am disappointed but not surprised by the Government’s decision to opt in to the EIO. I was a Home Office Minister some years ago, and even then officials tried to push all kinds of things, by which more power was taken away from this country. Following the Secretary of State’s previous answer, is she saying—let us let the public know the truth—that once we opt in, no matter how much we find that it is not working in our interest or that it is costing huge amounts of money, there is absolutely nothing we can do?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which shows not only that matters European divide different parties, but that people within the same party take different attitudes. She assumes that opting in to the order will mean extra costs and extra burdens for UK police, but I repeat what I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): we are talking about codifying arrangements that already exist. We are not suddenly being asked to sign up to something new that has just been plucked off the shelf. The suggestion is for practical co-operation that codifies and simplifies arrangements that already exist and that benefit police forces here in the UK.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the statement. It is right that we should opt in to orders that slash bureaucracy, help us fight crime and do not infringe our sovereignty. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important for her to work not just with her counterparts, but with Members of the European Parliament, to ensure that we strengthen the privacy and human rights safeguards in this order?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I hope that we can all work with MEPs to ensure that the directive that we end up with as a result of the negotiations in the coming months does what he suggests—slashes bureaucracy and makes it simpler for our prosecutors and police to ensure that justice is done. In doing that, we are all of conscious of the need to protect civil liberties.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals that she has made today—which are welcome, and represent a move away from Europhobia—include provisions, in articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Council decision, for intervention on banking transactions? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) implied, that is important in order to stop international organised crime.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the European investigation order will be a help to UK police forces and others across the European Union in tackling what we all agreed only yesterday is an important issue that should be given a greater focus—serious organised crime.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend, when she deals with the detail of these proposals, to ensure that these powers will apply only to common criminality between one country and another? For example, France has just banned the wearing of the burqa, which is a very un-British thing to do. Can she assure the House that if someone in this country used our freedom of speech to criticise that move, the French authorities would not be able to come here and arrest that person?
Mrs May
I think that my hon. Friend refers to the issue of dual criminality between member states, which is already provided for in relation to certain measures in the directive, especially coercive measures that might be taken as a result of the European investigation order. I can assure him that the issue of dual criminality is very much on our minds.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I warmly thank the Home Secretary for adopting this sensible, pragmatic and pro-European policy? I look forward to sending her a membership form for the European Movement. One of the problems that many UK police forces have had is tracking down child pornography and paedophile rings across Europe. Can she confirm that these proposals will go some way to helping police forces track down those people?
Mrs May
Now I am really worried!
Detection of various crimes, and the tracking down of the perpetrators, relies on cross-border co-operation. The point of the EIO is that it will assist such co-operation and, crucially, it will enable evidence to be gathered in a timely fashion. We already have examples— not in the sort of cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in drug trafficking—in which the evidence has arrived only after the end of the trial.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House—it is much appreciated. Does she share the concerns of some Back Benchers that during proceedings on the Lisbon treaty—when we were in opposition—loss of sovereignty was often described as just a “practical measure”? That phrase crept into her statement, too, and I would be grateful for reassurance that that is not the case.
Mrs May
I am trying not to make too much of a habit of making statements in the House—although there have been a few Home Office statements recently. I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern about the use of that terminology. I have looked into this issue and it is indeed a very practical measure. It will simplify, codify and put some time limits on processes that already exist. The MLA agreements are already in existence and are followed up by police forces here requesting evidence from overseas and by police forces overseas requesting evidence from the UK. These proposals will make it much easier to undertake that process in a timely fashion so that the evidence is available for both prosecutors and defendants in their trials.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the bravery that she has shown in taking such a different stance from that of so many members of her party? There are clearly criminals who exploit loopholes across borders, so would she be able to find a way to report to Parliament periodically on any advantages or gains that flow from this collaboration?
Mrs May
Having had my statement welcomed both by the shadow Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and now being described as “brave” by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I am not sure about this.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with some examples of the existing arrangements working, as well as examples of the problems caused for prosecutors and police by the lack of a timetable such as the one that will be introduced by the EIO.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s statement eloquently set out the reasons to welcome this process. However, the words “opt in” and “European directive” send shivers down many backbones in my constituency. Only today I heard from a constituent about the 256 European arrest warrants referred for mediation last year, presumably at a cost of untold millions to European taxpayers. Can the Home Secretary assure us that she and her team will scrutinise the detail of this directive to ensure that it is operationally more effective than the European arrest warrant system?
Mrs May
I can indeed assure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at the detail of this. The intention is to make it easier for prosecutors and police—and the defence—to obtain the evidence necessary for trials. She mentions the European arrest warrant, but as I said earlier, the EIO is entirely separate.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The problem with the argument that this is simply a simplification of existing arrangements is that that argument was put forward by Labour Ministers when they were pursuing the Lisbon treaty. That is why many of us are concerned about this and will continue to believe, as we said in opposition, that it demonstrates a relish for surveillance and a disdain for civil liberties. What impact will this order have on our DNA and fingerprint databases? Will forces from Europe be able to access those databases, and if so, what will happen if the person whose DNA they have accessed proves to be innocent? We would wipe that database after a period of time, but what would be our relationship with our partners in Europe?
Mrs May
I can, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend on his second point. Under the data protection arrangements in the European Union, DNA samples could be held by another member state only for the same time as they can be held here in the UK. That opens up another argument about why the Government intend to change the arrangements for the DNA database and do not want to hold the DNA of innocent people for significant periods, as the Labour Government did.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the proportionality test that will be applied, but who will write the rules of that test? Will it be by negotiation among EU countries or will it be the UK Government? And who will adjudicate that?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
As the final text will be determined by qualified majority vote, how may we be certain that we will not cede powers to Europe? Does the Home Secretary recall the words of a great and noble lady who, when Europe was trying to snatch powers, once said from that very Dispatch box, “No, no, no”? Is not that a much preferable way in which to approach a further European grab?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
“No, no, no” is the answer.
Mrs May
I am tempted, but I will avoid falling into that trap.
In the coming months we will be negotiating the final text of the directive with other member states. The early indications, from discussions with other member states, are that our concerns about the parts of the directive where we think that the drafting is not perfect, and more can be done, are shared by other member states, which is why we are confident we can arrive at a text that meets all the requirements that we want to set out. But is my hon. Friend really saying that he wants us to hamper the efforts of our police to bring people to justice and fight crime? I sincerely hope not. This measure will help the police to ensure that justice is done and crime beaten.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to the House, and I have been working hard to try to understand the Government’s position on this matter. However, I did not understand fully, from her statement, whether European authorities will not be able to order an investigation. Surely, the EIO does what it says on the tin, and allows European prosecutors and police to order an investigation here.
Mrs May
I will try to explain it to my hon. Friend. We already have agreements—the mutual legal assistance agreements—that enable the police force in the UK to ask other police forces in European member states to gain evidence that will be of use and benefit in taking cases to court and in providing evidence. There is also a reciprocal arrangement for other member states to ask our UK police forces to undertake similar evidence gathering. The EIO will simply put that on a timetable and simplify the processes. Currently a number of instruments can be used, but they are complex and confusing to those who use them. The EIO will simplify them into a single instrument and put a timetable on the process, which is why it will be of benefit to the police and prosecutors.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree with me, and with the police, that the directive will serve to speed up complex investigations, and should therefore help to keep criminals off the streets? Does she also agree that to do so would benefit British society as well as European society?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In response, I would simply cite a case of drugs trafficking that was drawn to my attention in which the failure to execute an MLA request resulted in a misleading picture being presented to the jury of the strength of the prosecution case. As a result, evidence that might have exculpated the UK defendant was not available in time for the trial. That case alone explains why we want to sign up to the EIO.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House to make this statement? It is no fault of her own, but nevertheless deeply unfortunate, that neither the European Scrutiny Committee nor the House of Commons has had the opportunity to consider this document. I urge her, when she comes to consider the detail of this proposal and future proposals of the same nature—which I believe may well appear—to be on her guard against the undoubted attempts of certain quarters in the European Union to build a common European judicial and legal system, and to use any means to hand as a building block towards that purpose. Will she be on her guard against that? In those circumstances, I believe that she would indeed be capable of saying, “No, no, no.”
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be on my guard, as will other members of the Government. We have made it clear that we are considering on a case-by-case basis all issues arising under the justice and home affairs remit of the EU. As I have said to the House, I believe that in this particular case it is in the national interest to opt in, but on other occasions we will opt out. So we take the issue that he raised very seriously.
Control Orders
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the information given in the statement entitled Control Order Powers (11 March 2010-10 June 2010) and laid before Parliament on 21 June 2010.
The statement reports that 10 of the 12 individuals subject to a control order as of 10 June 2010 were British citizens. The correct figure was that nine of the 12 individuals subject to a control order were British citizens.
Licensing Consultation
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On Wednesday 28 July the Home Office will be publishing a public consultation on proposals to overhaul the Licensing Act.
In the coalition agreement, the Government set out a clear programme of reform around alcohol licensing to tackle the crime and antisocial behaviour that is too often associated with binge drinking in the night-time economy. In particular, the Government set out the following commitments which are covered in this consultation.
We will overhaul the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, any premises that are causing problems.
We will allow councils and the police to shut down permanently any shop or bar found to be persistently selling alcohol to children.
We will double the maximum fine for under-age alcohol sales to £20,000.
We will permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing.
We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.
While we recognise the important role which pubs can play as part of the fabric of neighbourhoods and communities, the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2005 has not brought with it a vibrant “café culture”. Too often on a Friday and Saturday night, the police and local A&E departments bear the brunt of some of the worst excesses of binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We are determined to change this, and will be proposing to introduce more flexibility into the current licensing regime to allow local authorities and the police to clamp down on alcohol-related crime and disorder hot spots within local night-time economies.
The consultation document will be available on the Home Office website and printed copies will also be available in the Vote Office.